Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.

Actually, the meanings you need to investigate is the definitions, contexts and usages of words from any particular doctrine.

But of course! That is a given.

Quote:

Both AION and AIONIOS have meanings that can be about the perpetual nature of time. Perpetual can, in scriptural context, pertain to something that is continuous for a limited span of time.

The noun aion means age, time, and eternity. The adjective describes the time, the age, and the everlastingness, of something that is ongoing. Both terms describe age that is of any length depending upon what the author wants to convey. The terms can be closed if meant to be, or they can be open in the sense of simply just age, or time, or in the sense of eternal, forever, everlasting, and ongoing. Every usage of aion and aionios in these ways is correct.

Both aion, and aionios are open terms. It is like asking, "How long is a string?" The answer is that it depends. "String" is an open term, as is "long." Or, it is like asking, "How long is long?" When you think of the Greek noun aion, you can ask, "How long is an aion?" The same goes for the adjective, "How long is aionios?" The answer is that it depends, because the semantic range of the word means that it represents age, time, and eternity. Sometimes a writer wants to keep the terms open, and so he uses them in such a way as to indicate forever, everlasting, eternal, and ongoing. Sometimes a writer intends to close aion.

We find the noun aion closed off in certain context specific instances where it is purposely described in such a manner, like for example, in Matthew 13:39-49, where aion is given closure with the usage of the Greek word, sunteleia. The term "the end of the age" or "end of the time" is used by Jesus, where He says,

Matthew 13:39-49 and the enemy who sowed them is the devil, and the harvest is the end [sunteleia] of the [time, or age] [aion, aiwnov]; and the reapers are angels. 40 So just as the tares are gathered up and burned with fire, so shall it be at the end [sunteleia] of the [time, or age] [aion, aiwnov]. ... 49 So it will be at the end [sunteleia] of the [time, or age] [aion, aiwnov]; the angels will come forth and take out the wicked from among the righteous, 50 and will throw them into the furnace of fire; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

Closing the term with sunteleia is used in Matthew 24:3 once,

Matthew 24:3 As He was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the students came to Him privately, saying, 'Tell us, when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end [sunteleia] of the [time, or age] [aion, aiwnov]?'

Closing the term with sunteleia is used in Matthew 28:20 once,

Matthew 28:20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and behold, I am with you always, even to the end [sunteleia] of the [times, or ages] [aion, aiwnov].

These Matthew passages are prophetic examples where the context specifically closes off aion for us to readily see the intended meaning that must come with the clarifier sunteleia for end, completion, and consummation. Each passage must be considered in respect to the context of eschatological discussion. The sense may be the age before the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, or as a future eschatological allussion to even further in the future.

Quote:

It is equal in some ways to English Hyperbole where the word forever is used as a way to convey our perception of time passing.

That is correct.

Quote:

This is completely demonstratable in the context of a God who chastizes and draws all that he loves to him.

All I am pointing out is that the ideas that get labeled "universalism" are not inherantly based on fallacy as you assert.

A persons argument for thier beliefs can be. If your OP is an argument against universalism, it is flawed, your argument is only valid against someone who uses a root fallacy to present their case.

Which Universalism does....they apply AIONIOS in most, if not all instances, as age binding, that will have an end. Therefore, the OP is not flawed, as it pertains to the error of Universalism's interpretation of this particular term, regardless of its context.

Which Universalism does....they apply AIONIOS in most, if not all instances, as age binding, that will have an end. Therefore, the OP is not flawed, as it pertains to the error of Universalism's interpretation of this particular term, regardless of its context.

The same can be said to other doctrines that apply aionios usage of everlasting to things that end. This inherantly does not disprove the doctrine, it only shows the flaw of a words usage at a given point.

Aionios in context with it's known definitions and how it is used can pertain to a limited period of time.

To say that aionios is only defined as something unending is factually wrong.

A universalists improper use of the word in some points of scripture, has nothing to do with universalism being wrong.

Universalism is not proved wrong by your op, your op's premise has nothing to do with it being wrong or right.

The same can be said to other doctrines that apply aionios usage of everlasting to things that end. This inherantly does not disprove the doctrine, it only shows the flaw of a words usage at a given point.

Aionios in context with it's known definitions and how it is used can pertain to a limited period of time.

Universalism is not proved wrong by your op, your op's premise has nothing to do with it being wrong or right.

Phazelwood, I want you to know I appreciate this conversation with you, and I agree with you up to a point. Universalism, in general, not sect-specific, as you are focusing on, is the premise of debate.

Quote:

To say that aionios is only defined as something unending is factually wrong.

Which I never stated as my premise.

Quote:

A universalists improper use of the word in some points of scripture, has nothing to do with universalism being wrong.

Yes it does, it causes the hermeneutical path to err, the end result being Universalism....the final outcome of such hermeneutics. Doctrines are developed via hermeneutics and exegesis.
That is the premise of the debate.

Yes it does, it causes the hermeneutical path to err, the end result being Universalism....the final outcome of such hermeneutics. Doctrines are developed via hermeneutics and exegesis.
That is the premise of the debate.

Since you are talking about universalism in general the problem with this theory is that someone can come to the same conclusions without using the root word fallacy, so someones improper use of a word has no bearing upon that truth existing.

It is often the non universalist who demands that aionios, must mean everlasting in all cases that it is used, therefore given this line of reasoning, their non universalist view is made inherantly wrong as well.

Last edited by Phazelwood; 03-09-2011 at 07:14 AM..

Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.